Shakespeare's Loves Labours Lost part2
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 окт 2024
- In this video we show how the author of Loves labours Lost relates the narrative to Queen Elizabeth I's progress in 1578. The four main male characters can be shown to bear a resemblance to Robert Dudley, Philip Sidney, Christopher Hatton and Edward de Vere, who received awards at the 1578 ceremony at Audley end. Holofernes is an obvious match for Gabriel Harvey, the verbal sparring has direct parallels with the pamphlets published by Harvey and Nash prior to the 1598 version of the play. Francis Bacon, Mary Sidney and other candidates for authorship are discussed in the light of the evidence presented.
ruclips.net/video/bLb0b8r_9SY/видео.html Bob Prechter on Thomas Nashe Part 1
ruclips.net/video/iGmgQcdsa-E/видео.html Bob Prechter on Thomas Nashe Part 2 + Q&A
ruclips.net/video/4Ynpu1vpSgM/видео.html Professor Rima Greenhill: Elizabeth I & Ivan the Terrible as Inspiration for Love's Labour's Lost.
ruclips.net/video/7I1uyxQlRSI/видео.html Loves Labours Lost 1975
shakespeareoxfordfellowship.org/wp-content/uploads/Oxfordian2006_Miller-Oaths.pdf Oaths foresworn in Loves Labour Lost
www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Grief_and_Women_Writers_in_the_English_R/EYkaBQAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=I+have+found+unum+par,+a+pair,+papisticorum+bedorum&pg=PA50&printsec=frontcover
www.manchesterhive.com/display/9781526142597/9781526142597.00011.xml Spenser and Harvey
philological.cal.bham.ac.uk/forsett/act2trans.html Pedantius
babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015005586832&seq=9 Eva Turner Clarke
babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015005586832&seq=116 page 98 Pricket, Sore, Sorel
nosweatshakespeare.com/resources/shakespeare-insults/
quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo2/A93591.0001.001/1:6.1?rgn=div2;view=fulltext ECLOGUE I. Treating of honest Love and its happy success Intituled FAUSTUS. (Mantuan)
ruclips.net/video/H1_BB0MwK8M/видео.html LOVE'S LABOUR'S LOST | PART 5: GIORDANO BRUNO'S COMEDY IS THE REAL SOURCE OF THE PLAY
This is all too timely Claire. Marianna over at ResoluteFlorio just dropped her LLL video (which is very interesting, linking it to Bruno and Florio naturally a la Yates). But I will say it was so focused on 83-85 that I found myself wishing I had you present to help me connect her dots to the 70s.
Also see that some of my favorite folks on YT are all chiming in here! Dare I say, a community is building? (Not too loudly lest my breath blow out that candle)
Also haven't watched/listened at all yet. Literally saw it and clicked. Will be back after listening (as soon as tonight as late as Friday.)
So glad you're back!!
I have been checking every day for this. Thanks for another great presentation on what Stratfordians call a "difficult" play. Well, it is difficult for them since they cannot reconcile the life of "their man" to the content of the play.
As usual, you are advancing Shakespearean studies by leaps and bounds. Your careful research and delightful narration make what could be a difficult play even for doubters, much easier to understand.
Thank you for making such a pun- and joke-laden play so clear. You have done an exceptional job going through the play to find them all, or at least most of them.
How ironic that Harvey could not find Greene or Nashe, when "they" were always at court. (48:28)
I love your tribute to Alexander Waugh and your father. Both encouraged a fantastic and thorough scholar of the first rank.
Thanks for your kind remarks, I think you can understand why the delay. Yes I think that it is as important to get the right when and where, as it is to get the right who. They go hand in hand.
I was leaving comments piecemeal and they spiraled out of all proportion, so I'm collating them into one here:
First off, HATS OFF to you Claire. This is really amazing work. I donno how you're able to so fluidly move from seeming minutiae to seeming minutiae only to make us realize they are profound pieces of evidence. I hope one day you sit down with John Lyly's Endymion or Campaspe and give one of them the same ContextWS treatment because I think you could knock it out of the park.
But some notes for this video:
1:37 No Joke. What a task.
3:56 Neville's continental tour included Robert Sidney as well I believe. I know in 78/79 they visited Vienna together, meaning those two (and obviously, of course, Philip Sidney in 73) are the only WS candidates to visit the location of Measure for Measure.
22:07 Could this be the same CYGNUS as the one who writes a predatory poem for Jonson's Sejanus? The other unnamed poet in that prefatory material is PHILO--also heavily suggestive of Philip. Dating should preclude that possibility, but wilder things have happened. (Sidenote/SneakPeek: Brady, Daniel Cowan and I are attempting to get John Dee's Horoscope for Sidney translated, which is still in process, but so far seems like the conventional dating for that Horoscope is correct, 1570. John Dee indeed seems to predict Sidney's death exactly to the year and cause a decade and half before the event, but not conclusive until we get more translated)
23:26 Not sure if relevant to the reference being made here, but Falconbridge I think should call to mind King John. Falconbridge's heir is kind of the start of the whole play, as the two Falconbridge brothers are arguing over his inheritance. One of them is disinherited when he realizes he is the bastard of King Richard. What was his name? PHILIP.
29:34 Absolutely brilliant. Love this.
41:39 Not quite. Yes, Harvey is Hobbinol, and yes, technically sort of Spenser is Colin--but Spenser isn't actually Colin Clout. That is Sidney. (Citation needed on my part) Harvey himself seemed to have an actual attraction to Sidney which Katherine Duncan Jones relates in her biography of Sidney. Harvey apparently wrote several erotic poems for/about Sidney. Apparently it creeped Sidney out. Not sure of the dating on those, which will be majorly important. So Hobby Horse, seems to me not just a reference to Hobbinol, but a reference to his being a major fanboy of Sidney, as Philip is horse lover in Greek. Which brings up my last point below...
49:03 I'm not so sure Sidney was anything like a fan of Harvey's. Duncan-Jones seems to almost paint the opposite picture. Sidney seems aloof to Harvey and then off-put by Harvey. And this wouldn't be too out of the norm. That seems like almost the MO of Sidney--in stark contrast to Oxford--Sidney never seems to champion any of his patronees, and, often seems to demure or ignore some. Let us remember Gosson's attack on the Theatre was dedicated to Sidney. How did Sidney follow that up? By completely disagreeing with Gosson, and flipping the script by writing Defence of Poetry. Similarly, to whom is Bruno dedicating his Heroic Furies? Sidney.
I could flip the script and ask, who is/are the only candidates with heavy ties to Bruno--whose presence could explain the difference of Biron and Berowne? Well, it's Florio and Sidney. And as much as Florio has ties to French in 83-85, he doesn't have the 70s ties.
And as much as we want to make factional divides, Nashe prints Sidney. EO is in that printing as EO. If we're able to say Oxford can write a play (or many plays) about Leicester and Queen--is there really all that much factionality happening?
So my two cents, without too much stylistic evidence to back it up, at least at the moment... This is all right in line with pretty much everything I've been pitching over the last year: both Lyly and early WS is a merging of EO and PS. And it's not just them two, they're just the two best and brightest by 78. But if we go all the way back to 63 with Tancred and Gismund, we see the model for Elizabethan drama and for WS specifically comes from courtly masques. We also see that the norm always was collaboration amongst nobles. So this is the same crowd writing the Golden Tree Tilt in 81. Same crowd writing 100 Sundry Flowers, Paradise of Dainty Devices.
If we wanted to go farther ahead than LLL, all this still holds--TGV, CoE, MND are other easy examples of this. BUTTTT this is super general and begs for stylistic analysis to get to the knitty-gritty details: how many hands, and who is which?
Somewhat relatedly, Bob is on the right track, but I think he far too often oversteps: Greene and Nashe are often the same hands--plural, Nashe is more the one and Greene is more the other. We can see this more readily as those hands/voices develop into their new monikers, Dekker and Chettle respectively. I'm stating this all rather matter of factly, but fact is these are no facts, but my general leanings--but after a couple years of doubting my leanings only to find them having some actual integrity and import, I've decided maybe I'm not crazy and maybe I actually do know what--somewhat at least--I'm talking about.
Claire this video absolutely made my day, week and month. THANK YOU.
Please keep them coming!!! (No rush/No pressure😅)
One last open ended question: If Berowne is Oxford, what are we to make of Rosaline? Anne Cecil? Penelope Rich? Anne Vavasour?
(For any Florio fans reading this, same question may be asked of Bruno) She just seems a little too realized to not be a stand in in this allegory.
Thank you for your deep dive reply. So many questions still to answer about this play. I will take on board your comments. But I feel is is time to move on to the next.
I have just bought OV and think it will be monumental in starting to unravel 16th Century literature. I hope you have joined the OV FB page and have seen my post urging you to read "Foure Letters".
I will look at your comments above in more detail and try and reply.
Clare (no i) 😉😁
@@ContextShakespeare1740
Thanks Clare!!! 😅
Honestly, can't thank you enough for this video.
I don't have FB unfortunately, but I'll see if Brady can make one for us for our channel and join.
Bob being the standout guy that he is let Brady and I have access to OV back in August and I've been perusing it since. I use it more as a reference book than reading it like textbook or monograph. I'd say I've covered a good 500ish pages. Mostly Henslowe era, but also a good chunk of the Marlowe and Lyly sections as well. I've hopped around his Greene and Nashe stuff.
As awesome as Bob is, I have to say I'm no great fan of his theory or his methodologies or his argumentation. He hops around so much that I never feel like we get a real argument or proof. It feels a lot more like a collection of Anti-Stratfordian facts and sentiments that revolve around Oxford. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing as far as research goes. But I'm finding I feel that way about a lot of SAQ books/theories, especially Oxfordian. Just read a chapter or two of Eva Turner Clark's Hidden Shakespeare today (R&J, MND, Troilus) and I feel similarly about that as I do OV. Still both are much better in my than Ogburns. Also read a chapter of that today for the first time in a long long time. I'm struck by how liberally they state potential claims as facts. I never noticed back in the day, hard not to notice now.
But that may explain why I am so enamored with your series doing deep dives on these plays. It's a breath of fresh air going this deep. It's also wonderful that you stay focused on the play in context.
All that said, it would be very very helpful to see other folks' reactions in real time to see if I'm missing something, or even perhaps see what folks find so appealing/persuasive about Bob's Theory, especially as it is present in OV, so joining or following along with FB group might be a good idea.
That is a lot to chew on. There are so many topical readings of LLL and all seem to be well supported by the text; I am still looking for a unitary reading which seems acceptable. Just a quick note. By all accounts it was Lyly who convinced Oxford that Harvey had attacked him, long before Nashe was on the scene. Harvey's denials strike me as less than sincere, he and Spenser are pretty firmly attached to the Leicester/Sidney circle by the time of the Audley End visit.
I don't think you can get a unitary reading there are as always too many layers. As for Nash I think I intimated that he was in fact Oxford. You are right of course about Harvey, he announces one thing and thinks that he is clever enough to hide what he knows, but he is not as clever as other dissemblers.
@@ContextShakespeare1740 there is a vast recent scholarship on Harvey based on his extensive surviving annotations. It really changed my understanding of where he is coming from.
16:26 Thankkkkkkkk youuuuuuuuu!! Been trying to get folks to look at LoM for better part of a year--like LLL (and Lyly's plays), LoM is yet another static drama filled with a wily batch of varied characters that is also an allegory for QE and Leic.
There is a loose but direct connection between Rhombus and LLL. LLL clearly features ideas and lines from Bruno. Bruno's iteration of the Art of Memory is totally aligned against Peter Ramus. Sidney clearly uses Rhombus to evoke Ramus. Sidney himself seemed to straddle between the 2 schools, hence Bruno's insistence to change Philip's mind as he dedicates several works around 83 to Sidney, including the Heroic Furies. The title itself links back to ideas and aspects of Sidney that link to Lyly... Endymion has a chacrater named Eumenides, who I have pitched as Sidney before, but Eumenides is another name for the Divine Furies. Sidney, in DoP, also lists being able to act as the divine furies of the gods as one of the reasons for writing poetry--in fact is directly after/part of his famous line that poetry's purpose is darkly couched in mystery, so that profane wits don't abuse.
Oops, sorry David, meant to leave that above post in the general comments.
But I am deeply ambivalent about unitary reading of this play. I see the points of both sides while not seeing the answer for either.
Daniel and I were discussing this and we should probably get at least 3 readings: -original 70's masque (French marriage politics)
-early 80s rework (addition of Bruno)
-early 90s rework (addition of Harvey-Nashe wars and change of Henry to Ferdinand to represent Strange)
We probably shouldn't get a unitary reading. BUT, seems that within each time period we should be able to conjecture or reverse engineer a unitary reading for each of those chronologies.
What will make that difficult is if that number is bigger than 3. Say if we had a late 80s post-Leicester re-work, or yet another re-work after Strange dies and companies realign, might be hard to parse from another nearby reworking.
But I think LLL is by no means special in that regard. Not sure, but I think Claire is sort of on the same page as me here, we can do the same with a bunch of WS. MND is one that I keep going back to. I think MND is probably the merging of a Sidney masque and early Oxford comedy. Oxford's would cover the lover's square/triangle with 2 couples. Sidney's would cover Puck, Titania, Oberon and a proto-Bottom. When the two get merged the 3rd storyline of community theatre for wedding would be added. But when that reworking/3rd storylines happens/gets added is above my current pay grade--not too sure.
@@chancecolbert7249 I totally agree, at points in my research I was thinking that some parts of the play didn't fit with my previous analysis, but then I had to keep reminding myself that it was a different era, a reworking, so it didn't have to fit. I concentrated on the 1578 original and the later 1590's reworking, I missed the 1580's evidence, but I think that the video was long enough. My 2023 summary covers some of these ideas of merging and separating. For example the entertainment involving a shipwreck which might have started as one masque evolves into The Tempest, Twelfth night and perhaps the Comedy of Errors. The ideas of characters being separated then brought together form a theme which is used in MSND. There is a clear reference to the cold summer of 1594, the only one of it's kind in the weather records of the second half of the 1500's, the final version could not have been written prior to this, de Vere's daughter's wedding followed soon after. A thought just occurred to me that he might have brought together some favourite masques of his daughter or son in law, for a super well woven compilation for their wedding celebrations.